DEDICATED TO EXPOSING DISINFORMATION AND PROPAGANDA AND TO PROMOTING UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS - WITH SHARP ANALYSIS AND BLUNT COMMENTARY. NO ADS. NO TIP-JAR. JUST THE TRUTH.

"ALL CAPS IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE."

Sunday, November 12, 2006

MONCKTON DEBUNKS GLOBAL WARMING ECONOMICS

Christopher Monckton, Viscount Brenchley, continues his dispassionate dissection of the foolishness in Sir Nicholas Stern's economic analysis of the global warming conundrum in this week's Sunday Telegraph. In brief:

By 2035, says Sir Nick, temperature will have risen by "over 2C". It sounds alarming. What he means, though, is over 2C since 1750, when we don't know what the temperature was. Stern's 485 parts per million by 2035 is based on the UN's worst case. Even then, the increase compared with today would be just 0.7C. On the UN's lower projection, implying 425ppm by 2035, only 0.3C.

The UK accounts for just 2 per cent of global emissions, and falling. Even if Britain stopped using energy altogether, global temperature by 2035 would be six thousandths of a degree C less than if we carried on as usual. If we shut down once a week on Planet Day, make that less than one thousandth of a degree. Even if every Western country complied with Kyoto (and most won't), Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma says temperature a century from now would be a 25th of a degree lower than without Kyoto.

The views of 200 readers who emailed me are in the link above. About a third are scientists, including well-known climatologists and a physicist who confirmed my calculations. Some advise governments.

Nearly all condemn the "consensus". Most feel that instead of apologising, the UN has misled them, especially by using the defective "hockey-stick" temperature graph.

Global Warming Hysteria is advanced by the left in order to give them yet another reason to place all human activity under the control of a bureaucratic elite.

In the XIXth Century, and through the first half of the XXth Century, statists in the United States (an elsewhere) promulgated the idea that a rational society required a "dictatorship of the proletariat" so that the economy could be controlled by wise men who knew better than the market. The idea became quite popular in Europe, and spawned communism, fascism, and National Socialism. But it never caught on in the United States.

By the 1950s, it was obvious even to the American communists that communism had turned Russia and Eastern Europe into a hellhole. "No More Since Hungary." Besides which, the American worker had never been fooled by communist propaganda.

So instead of promulgating a worker-controlled demand-economy, leftists created a "new left" based not on economic justice but on social issues like civil rights, disarmament, and, eventually, opposition to the War in Vietnam.

This was a Gramscian movement. Following the path outlined by the Italian communist leader Antonio Gramsci, the New Left engaged in a cultural struggle to disrupt and destroy the cultural bases of America's successful free market society, in order to replace them with a new, revolutionary culture. That culture warcontinues.

Gramsci argued that the failure of the workers to make anti-capitalist revolution was due to the successful capture of the workers' ideology, self-understanding, and organizations by the hegemonic (ruling) culture. In other words, the perspective of the ruling class had been absorbed by the masses of workers. In "advanced" industrial societies hegemonic cultural innovations such as compulsory schooling, mass media, and popular culture had indoctrinated workers to a false consciousness. Instead of working towards a revolution that would truly serve their collective needs, workers in "advanced" societies were listening to the rhetoric of nationalist leaders, seeking consumer opportunities and middle-class status, embracing an individualist ethos of success through competition, and/or accepting the guidance of bourgeoisreligious leaders.

Well, that didn't work either. Communism finally collapsed in the Soviet Union (and in China, and almost everywhere else except for North Korea, Cuba, and Zimbabwe) and although the "Movement" advanced a variety of causes, America remained a basically conservative bastion of free-market economics. The left is splintered into a bewildering array of factions and fractions, each dedicated to one or another narrowly focused special interest. There was no unifying cause around which to orchestrate the need for bureaucratic domination of the world's economy.

That's what the left thinks it has found in "global warming." It is part of their luddite religious belief that prosperity is bad and that the pristine poverty and ignorance of the masses must be maintained in order that the elite might better manage every detail of daily life.

But unlike the other-worldly promises of other forms of belief-based ideologies, communism promised a material reward in this world -- and when it didn't materialize, communism collapsed.

There are already signs that the Earth is beginning to cool off again, and that the recent warm period of 1975-2000 is over.

Perhaps after a cool 5 years or so, the left will move on to another fantasy.

35 comments:

There are already signs that the Earth is beginning to cool off again, and that the recent warm period of 1975-2000 is over.Huh? 1975-2000? How does that claim make sense when the hottest year on record was 2005? 2006 is also on pace to be one of the warmest years on record.

So, your money is on the earth cooling off (I'm interested to see the data you have for this already happening)? So, what would your conclusion be if next year were again, the hottest on record? What evidence would be enough to convince you that anthropogenic global warming was real?

Feeling a little sorry for yourself or somthing? Does hiding your head in the sand help with that sense of dread?

Are you just an idiot, or do you have some corporate/stink-tank axe to grind?

Global warming is not only real--it is going to threaten civilization within the next 20 years. All the data is coming in high, which means current climate models are being out-stripped by the fact that the Eco-sphere is falling out of equilibrium.

I am really sick of crap like this. Is your brain really that small.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19596

Read it. Is that a left-wing conspiracy, or are you a right-wing nut-case? My money is on the later.

First of all, Mr. Yangtree. It is evident from the best records we have that the average temperature of the earth tends to fluctuate. It goes up and goes down. The warming and cooling periods seem to last 25-100 years. During the 20th century we have already had a couple of warm periods and a couple of cool periods. I think that the Earth probably did warm up during the latter part of the 20th century, but there is no evidence that the activities of puny human beings contributed much to that. I think that solar radiation is the likeliest source, since Mars and Uranus, if I am not mistaken, were also measured as warmer during the period. I think that we are likely to see a cooling off now. Just wait and see.

As for Mr Free Thinker, I am afraid that you don't distinguish between a conspiracy theory on the one hand and the identification of the left's underlying ideology on the other hand.

There is no conspiracy of leftists taking orders from AL-G'ore in order to promote the threat of global warming. Global warming is just an obvious ideological ploy for a group that sincerely believes centralized government control of the economy would be beneficial.

The facts suggest that giving economic control to a bureaucratic elite inevitably leads to economic catastrophe. All communist, socialist, fascist, and National Socialist economies are in various stages of partial or complete collapse. Why you leftists want to impose that sort of inefficient, corrupt, and tyrannical system on a free market economy that is the most productive in the world's history is frankly beyond me. Although as a former card-carrying member of the Industrial Workers of the World, I guess I should understand it.

I do find it interesting that Uncle Bestraffe thinks I have my head in the sand with respect to global warming. It's interesting because the left does have its head in the sand with respect to jihadi terror. Since Septemebr 11th, 2001, there have been more than 6,500 Islamist terror attacks in the world, but the lefties don't believe there is any danger. (Of course many lefties are quite comfortable with the idea of a one-world-one people-one big union-one Ummah-one Prophet PBUH-one Caliphate-One Caliph type of set-up, aren't they?)

There is as I say concrete evidence of the danger posed by worldwide Islamist terrorists.

The evidence for anthropogenic global warming and the supposed catastrophes it will cause is on the other hand extremely dubious at best.

We ought to take care of the real problem rather than the imaginary one.

Yes, it's obvious that we have periods of warming and cooling. We've had cool periods (before 1920) and warm periods (1980 and beyond), but it's not like we've cycled back to the 1920s after that time or reached the current heights before 1990 as this temperature graph shows. As I specified earlier and provided a link for, 2005 was the warmest year on record from a global standpoint. That evidence doesn't seem to jibe with your recent cooling idea. Of course, time will tell. I take it from your response, that 5 more of the warmest years on record in a row would convince you that this is not a normal warming period, even if the evidence that this is the warmest the globe has been in several hundred (and most likely several thousand) years hasn't.

As for your assertion that the solar radiation is the likliest source, I just happen to have an older post on my blog in response to that very notion, also directly dealing with your premise on the planets. Of course, if it was increased solar radiation, wouldn't we expect to see all the planets warming up, not just one or two? Then there's the slight problem that we're currently at a solar minimum in the 11 year cycle. Yes, I agree that the next few years will be telling. If you truly believe that, I welcome your (mostly) reasonable point of view, at least as compared to the truly rabid and insane "reliapundit".

Finally, let me address your assertion that "there is no evidence that the activities of puny human beings contributed much to that" We know the amount of CO2 that humans have introduced into the atmosphere. We also know that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up in the same period by about 20%. Finally, we know that the greenhouse effect is real and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that contributes a significant amount to that effect. So, why isn't any of this simple, basic science convincing? If the CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 20% and the obvious, proximate cause is that mankind's increased contribution, doesn't that, in and of itself show that "puny humans" are significantly changing the atmosphere. If they're managing to do that, then why is the warming step such a big leap?

#1: Triton " Triton is approaching an extreme southern summer, a season that occurs every few hundred years. During this special time, the moon's southern hemisphere receives more direct sunlight, which heats the polar ice caps. "For a northern summer on Earth, it would be like the Sun being directly overhead at noon north of Lake Superior," Elliot said." Yes, truly amazing warming due to a season that happens every few hundred years. Are we in a similar type season? Do we have any reason to think so?

#3: Pluto "The increasing temperatures are more likely explained by two simple facts: Pluto's highly elliptical orbit significantly changes the planet's distance from the Sun during its long "year," which lasts 248 Earth years; and unlike most of the planets, Pluto's axis is nearly in line with the orbital plane, tipped 122 degrees. Earth's axis is tilted 23.5 degrees." So, this is most likely due to the highly elliptical orbit of Pluto. Does the Earth have a highly elliptical orbit?

As for the other links, I dealt with their claims (or lack thereof) previously, but I know that actually responding to arguments instead of just providing links that I already showed the fallacy of is beyond your capabilities.

Yes, my graph is back to 1860. I believe that we were discussing, your claim that "the warming and cooling periods seem to last 25-100 years." 100 years ago is 1906. This graph covers that entire period and refutes your claims.

I do also appreciate your graph. Please note that the black line. The one that's significantly higher than anything else and the only one that goes to the end of the graph (others stop at variable points, 1995 being the latest) is instrumental data (i.e. actual measured data), not proxy reconstruction. So, as your graph shows, in the last few years. The same time you were claiming a "cooling trend" was starting, we've the globe has been warmer than any time in the past 1000 years. And that's by your graph. I love it.

I should also add that the graph line of proxy data that shows the greatest warming in the past (the red line) is the one that tracks the least well with actual measured data. Of course, it's from a study named, "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data".

Thanks also for bringing up a point that I had previously raised on this very blog as showing Monckton's fundamental dishonesty in dealing with the data. If you were trying to explain the warming up to 1940 with solar output, you'd have a good case, after that, though, the solar output flattened and the temperature anomoly diverged quite dramatically. That's what led the very same Dr. Solanki that Monckton quotes to conclude:"solar activity affects the climate but plays only a minor role in the current global warming." This is something you would have already known if you had read my blog's post on the planets above.

We'll be posting more on glow-ball worming in the near future.I really look forward to it. In your last response, you provided a very good case for global warming. All I had to do was highlight and explain the good bits. Please continue to do so in the future.

sure: there're scientists who can explain pluto and triton with hypotheses which disocunt the sun (and convenientlky reinfirce their ideological preferences here on earth), but they fail occam's razor. shit: they fail occam's toothbrush and shampoo!

the simplest explanation for ALL of the earth's MANY warming and cooling phases, and the now irrefutably documented warming and cooling phases in the SOLAR system is the... sun. DUH.

the dang sun warms pluto for 13 freakindeakin years after it's made it's closest passing by the sun.

50% of all the co2 on earth is bound up in trees. olf trees bind up less co2 than young trees which are growing more. the real cause of the increas in atmospereic co2 is more OLDER trees. we need to cut down ALL the old forests - like the amazon - which surveys have found has more older trees in it now than ever before - and replaxce them with fast-growing young trees.

YUP: DE-froestation and RE-forestation is the answer and not regulation of man-made gases.

all the oldtree cut down could be used for housiong and furniture and paper - so the co2 stay bound up.

if you truly FEAR gloabl warming and if yoiu TRULY feel that atmosperic co2 is a MAJOR cause, then you should STOPpoliticking for isiotic leftwing policies which will have next tio NO effect, and start a gflobal campaign to cut down OLD TREES.

somehow, i think you won't do this BECAUSE you are really anti-industry ansd anti-free market and anti-capitalist and a treehugger.

How many planets and moons are there in the Solar System? If the Sun, something that that all have in common was increasing its output, then they should all be warming. At any time, some may be warming and some cooling. Pointing out two (espcially Pluto and Triton, which have aboust as little in common with the Earth as any bodies in the solar system) and saying that the fact that they're warming is related to Earth's warming isn't Occam's Razor, it's Unreliapundit's Typical Illogic.

sure: there're scientists who can explain pluto and triton with hypotheses which disocunt the sunYes, there are. Are there any that actually explain it by claiming that it is due to increased solar output? If that were the case, wouldn't we actually be able to measure that difference in the last few years directly? Where do we happen to be right now in the solar cycle?

Of course, the actual application of Occam's Razor here would be to understand that CO2 levels have risen 20% since 1960 at the same time that man-made CO2 has risen by a commesurate amount and that CO2 is a forcing greenhouse gas and that the temperature has gone up due to that change. This is exactly what we would expect to happen, understanding the greenhouse effect, so doesn't Occam's Razor dictate that it is indeed that change which is causing the effects we are seeing?

somehow, i think you won't do this BECAUSE you are really anti-industry ansd anti-free market and anti-capitalist and a treehugger.No matter how many times I say that I don't support the Kyoto Protocols and that I really, really, really want a scientific solution, not an economic solution to this problem, you don't understand. It's no surprise, no matter how many times I present an argument that flattens one of yours, the next time you simply repeat the original one, not remembering my counter-points. You are incapable of listening and learning. You exist in a black and white world dominated completely by your dysfunctional relationship with your parents, and every new idea is solely judged through that prism. I'm glad that you have brought Punditarian on board. I think that we can learn from each other and have a rational discussion. With you, it's just me pummelling you over and over and over, and that does get boring for me and painful for you.

Solanki's exact quote that you're referring to is from his paper: Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?. The quote is: "In particular, the Sun cannot have contributed more than 30% to the steep temperature increase that has taken place since then" If your conclusion is that his absolute maximum possible contribution is the most likely scenario and that the warming is caused by 30% increased solar actvity and 70% increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, I doubt we will have too much to disagree about.

He went on to say, in a later article, "Just how large this role is, must still be investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide" I don't think that leaves any doubt as to where his research conclusions lie and what he thinks is the most major cause of global warming.

UN reports in council http://pame.arctic-council.org/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/245.htm show increase in solar forcing or 3W.m^-2 since 1700 (see Fig. 6.5 and related data). The text reitareates that "uncertainties in the assumptions made about the state of the Sun during that period could imply a range of between 1 and 15 Wm-2 reduction in TSI less than present mean values although most estimates lie in the 3 to 5.5 Wm-2 range"

However in the processing was made a mistake the paragraph 6.11.1.2 ends with estimate of 0.3wm^-1, one tenth of the measured solar forcing. This makes the solar forcing insignificant (see last bar in fig 6.6).

All the current warming is thereby proved to be caused by solar forcing by the very UN report, after a simple correction of copying mistake.

To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below.

AND KYOTO?! Here:

" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "

Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicistProfessor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal

SO LET'S SUMMARIZE: man-made co2 is NOT casuing global-warming, and kyoto and all other regulatory and tax schemes would do nothing but increase interference in free markets thereby reducing human liberty.

which is what the Left has always wanted. and which is why they support kyoto and other similar staist schemes.

Interesting assertion, but you've apparently mistaken measurements of "reduction in TSI" (total solar irradiance) for "estimates for solar radiative forcing". The two are not the same measurement. There is no misprint. The solar forcing number is derived from TSI, not equivalent to TSI. I do love your idea that thousands of scientists have missed this "misprint" and have done hundreds of thousands of hours of work while laboring under this simple misconception that you have now correctd for them. Priceless.

Since we agree that Kyoto is a flawed idea (for the 20th time), I'll focus on the top article . As per usual with your "truth", this is not peer-reviewed or ever written by a scientist. Its author is Monte Hieb, a mining safety engineer.

But let's leave that aside and analyze the basis for his calculations. First, he claims that H20 is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect. This is simply not correct. While overlap effects and the variability of cloud cover make it difficult to determine the exact amounts of any gas, in a clear sky, CO2 would account for 26% of the greenhouse effect and H20 for 60%. If we assume an average of 50% cloud cover, that might reduce it to 13% or so (probably an overestimate).

His second, much more egregious mistake is making the leap from man producing 3.225% of the total created CO2 per year and man only causing 3.225% of the greenhouse effect due to CO2. If you have a 100 gallon tub that has a 99 gallon/minute input pipe and a 99 gallon/minute output pipe (both operating at maximum efficiency), then the 100 gallon tub never overflows. If you change the input pipe by 1%, to 100 gallons/min, and leave the output unchanged, you get the tub overflowing in 100 minutes. Prior to man’s inputs the system was in equilibrium, with approximately the same amount of CO2 entering and leaving the system each year. With a 3% increase into the system every year, we’ve measured a 20% increase in the CO2 level in the atmosphere since 1960. So, obviously, man has been responsible for at least 20% of the atmospheric CO2 and thus 20% of the greenhouse effect due to CO2.

So, let’s use our 13% number above and let’s take the generally agreed upon number that the greenhouse effect causes the earth to be 30 degrees C warmer than it would otherwise be. Ignoring all feedback and feed-forward effects, that would give us (30*.13*.2) or .78 degrees C warming since 1960 due to global warming effects. The actual number since 1960 is about .6 degrees C. Not too bad for back of the napkin estimates.

Geocraft.com is not only accurate, but also erering on the low side. There is 380ppm CO2 in air, but between 1000ppm and 4000ppm of H2O in afmosphere. Cosider 2000ppm being 5 times as much as CO2.

The next question is which is more "see through" for the IFR. Please look at the absorbtion spectrum http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/absorbspec.gif and compare it to the black body radiation curve http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/GuideFig1.gif . H20 blocks about third of the longwave IFR radiation ( 15um and longer) and about quarter of the high energy shortwave IFR (8um and shorter).

On the other hand, the CO2 can block no more than 2um IFR bandwidth, most of that already being blocked by pre-industrial concentrations. More CO2 will have a small effect, just as putting a single vertical blind atop of another in a wide window won't add too much shade.

Look at the data, they scream for themselves.

Petrus

----

Sticker bumper designs: If you are serious about CO2 emissions, start paying voluntary greenhouse tax from every exhalation. How about dime a puff, adjusted dor your lung volume?

Another activist sticker:Stop sending free CO2 fertilizer to the third word nations!

Unfortunately, I don't have time to respond to all of these tonight. I did look briefly at the modeller you reference, but I'm not sure how you're setting relative humidity. You're not mistaking the field "Water Vapor Scale (Height)" to mean "percentage of relative humidity" are you? If so, you might want to take a look at the lower graph and see what happens to mbars of H20 when you go to say 20, 50, and 100 on the "water vapor scale".

I do look forward to responding in full. It is so nice to have someone make a few new arguments for a change on this blog. You and punditarian are definitely a breath of fresh air.

There is surely one mistake in my calculations above. I am missing a zero in the H2O ppm figures. Absolute Humidity between 1% and 4% corresponds to 10000 to 40000ppm, which is between 25 times and 105 times the amount of CO2. If H2O were as oppaque as CO2 for IFR, that would make water to contribute 1/25 = 96% to 1/105=99% to the greenhouse effect. However I believe it is somewhat less opaque (per 10cm thickness) over much wider spectrum that somewhat misses the 288K black body radiation peak (while CO2 takes about 2um strip close to the peak power density )

the earth has warmed and cooled many times before man contributed a dang thang to the atmosphere. it will continue to do so.

there is NO PROOF man is causing any warming of th globe - only HIGHLY COMPLEX AND DISPUTED HYPOTHESES.

air pollution in fact creates shade and cooling, and maybe we should burn more dirty fuels to prevent the global disaster you and al gore and chicken little claim we're inevitably headed for.

heh.

the chief problems for people in the world are poverty and disease and we shouold deal with these and not phony things like "man-made global warming."

we need to build more roads and factories and power plants and industrial centers in africa if that continent is ever gonna be able to provide a decent living standards to the people there. ditto the wntrire third world. GOT THAT: MORE INDUSTRY AND MORE CONSUPTION OF RESOURCES.

that's what our brothers and sisters in the third world need.

BTW: thanks for admitting that kyoto is total bullshit.

before next year is over i think you will agree the whole gloabl warming thing is a scam.

The TSI = 4*forcing, the ratio between the area of the earth area of the earth shade crosscut.Are you taking that from Scafetta and West? This is just a rough estimate that assumes a linear relationship between TSI variations and forcing at every point along the graph. Even if this was a totally valid assumption, that would still put you at an absolute maximum of 35% the current warming being explained by solar forcing. In that case, what would you say about the other 65%. Didn't I already cover this above? I think that you're exaggerating the solar effect, but for the sake of argument, what caused the rest of the warming.

How could they come to number as low as 0.4Wm^-2 from the picture 6.5 other than by "careful" selection of data?Simple, they don't make the same assumptions as Scafetta and West. This might help explain how they got what they did.

On the other hand, the CO2 can block no more than 2um IFR bandwidth, most of that already being blocked by pre-industrial concentrations. More CO2 will have a small effect, just as putting a single vertical blind atop of another in a wide window won't add too much shade.I think that the example of Venus proves that this is wrong. The surface temperature there is hot enough to melt soft metals. Why? CO2 makes up over 90% of the atmosphere. If you're theory was right, the CO2 would have stopped influencing the temperature long, long before it got to this temperature. While there are diminishing returns to adding more and more CO2, you have to go a fair way before reaching them. By the time you reach the upper limit, we're all long dead.

In any event, you missed out on the most important difference between CO2 and H20 when it comes to this discussion. CO2 is a driver, H2O is a dependent variable. It's irrelevant how much H20 is pumped into or taken out of the atmosphere. The ecosystem already has a way of quickly reaching equilibrium either through precipitation or evaporation (there is no such immediate mechanism for C02, which is why we've seen its atmospheric level rise 20% since 1960). The only thing that really influences how much H20 will be in the atmosphere (on average, assuming water availability), is the temperature itself, since at higher temperatures, the atmosphere can hold more H20. Therefore, H20 is a dependent variable, only interesting for feedback/feed-forward effects, not as a driver of climate change.

I'm still interested in how you were using the modeller. Let me know how you were directly inputting H20 concentration. What is the field labeled?

i am glad you like petrus and punditarian!Me too. I hate to damn them with faint praise by comparing them favorably to you. High jumping a bar set at 0'1" is not difficult.

the earth has warmed and cooled many times before man contributed a dang thang to the atmosphere. it will continue to do so.I've answered this illogical argument many times before. Here's a link that can probably explain it better than I can again.

there is NO PROOF man is causing any warming of th globe - only HIGHLY COMPLEX AND DISPUTED HYPOTHESES.There's plenty of evidence and I've walked through the very simple theory many times before. There's just no evidence that you're willing to accept, and of course, nothing scientific is simple for you. So, I'll ask again, what would constitute proof of anthropogenic global warming as far as you're concerned? Since you have no answer to this question, presumably no proof presented could ever meet your standard. Therefore, your "no proof" is merely a circular argument. It's so bizarre that you repeatedly have posted claims of dispositive proof which are totally bogus, yet you then turn around and make the National Academy of Science, IPCC, EPA, NOA, etc. have come to their conclusions based on "no proof".

air pollution in fact creates shade and cooling, and maybe we should burn more dirty fuels to prevent the global disaster you and al gore and chicken little claim we're inevitably headed for.I think the potential solution I highlighted months ago makes more sense than covering cities in smog. But that's just me. You have your own unique perspective.

the chief problems for people in the world are poverty and disease and we shouold deal with these and not phony things like "man-made global warming."I totally agree. But there's no reason to make things even worse on third-world countries, like most African nations, by also saddling them with this problem. Admitting the problem and solving it before it gets worse without unduly burdening the economy of the US or other nations is what I'm looking for here, but we'll never get there if we don't admit there is a problem and research a solution.

Of course, the other issue here is poverty and disease are bad, but they're not actively being caused by anyone. Anthropogenic global warming is being caused directly by man, in a large part by the people in the US. It's one thing to have a moral responsibility to make the world a better place, but it's another to have a responsibility to try and fix the problems that you're actually creating.

BTW: thanks for admitting that kyoto is total bullshit.You're welcome. I did that months ago repeatedly, on this blog, and on my own. Thanks for finally listening. You'll probably forget by the time you make your next response. Because you’re like that.

before next year is over i think you will agree the whole global warming thing is a scam.That's a very interesting prediction. Of course, as any rational person, I am open to contradictory evidence. So, what is going to happen by the end of next year that will convince me. I know that you like to make predictions, so why don't you actually make one and we'll see how it turns out.

joe your wrote: "there's plenty of evidence" alas, some supports the hypothesis and some doesn't. this retort proves you agree: there is no PROOF.

since you openly and unambiguously agree that kyoto is BULLS*IT, then you must tacitly agree that NO DRASTIC MEASURES NEED BE TAKEN, AND THAT FRE ENTERPRISE AND FREE MARKETS CAN DEAL WITH CLIMATE CHANGE FROM ANY SOURCE - SHOULD IT ARISE.

this is the whole crux of the debate - ON A POLITICAL/ECONOMIC LEVEL.

if the man-made g-w HYPOTHESIS is wronf or right.

the socialists want to use this as an excuse to gaoin greater control over people and markets.

but you admit, now, that this effort is BS.

do you say this because you want EVEN GREATER CONTROL by the state/eleites over markets, or bewcause you understand that markets can deal wioth this problem - IF it arises?

joe your wrote: "there's plenty of evidence" alas, some supports the hypothesis and some doesn't. this retort proves you agree: there is no PROOF.The vast majority of the science supports the theory. It is compelling enough, not just for me, but for:

The US National Academy of SciencesThe PentagonThe American Meteorological SocietyThe American Association for the Advancement of ScienceThe American Geophysical Union

What scientific organizations disagree that the evidence is sufficient to support this theory? What's your best counter-evidence? I seem to have swatted down all your previous misconceptions about other planets and the sun rather easily. As far as proof goes, in science, you will very rarely get absolute proof of anything, so on that I will agree with you. Hypothesis supported by evidence and predictive ability become theories. Over time, theories become more and more accepted and are generally accepted as factual, but they could always be replaced by better theories that fit the data better and have better predictive power. Newtonian theories of physics were replaced by Einsteinian ones after being accepted for hundreds of years. That's science.

this is the whole crux of the debate - ON A POLITICAL/ECONOMIC LEVEL.As far as you're concerned, this is certainly true. This holds no interest for you except for the potential political/economic impacts. What you fail to understand is that attacking the science because of these reasons just makes you look foolish. When the time comes to move forward on solutions, I don't think anyone who is resisted

but you admit, now, that this effort is BS.That was what I was saying all along. You just never listened before. You're have a need to pigeonhole everyone that disagrees with you into your internally generated caricatures. Information that disagrees with what you have already decided is ignored.

since you openly and unambiguously agree that kyoto is BULLS*IT, then you must tacitly agree that NO DRASTIC MEASURES NEED BE TAKEN, AND THAT FRE ENTERPRISE AND FREE MARKETS CAN DEAL WITH CLIMATE CHANGE FROM ANY SOURCE - SHOULD IT ARISE.Here's another goof example of your binary thinking. If Kyoto is unworkable, then free markets are the only alternate solution that anyone has ever suggested. The global warming problem is more like creating interstate highways or providing a country's defense. Since there are high inherent barriers to solving the problem and implementing the solution, there will almost surely have to be some governmental involvement. However, this should mainly be in research for now. Depending on what the solution is, the free market might take it over eventually. This solution could take a lot of forms: fuels that don't produce greenhouse gases, extracting and sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere, and injecting particles that reflect more sunlight into the atmosphere are three possibilities. The first makes sense for the free market to handle once discovered. There's no profit in the last 2, so the market wouldn't deal with them properly.

before next year is over i think you will agree the whole global warming thing is a scam.I think you forgot to relate why you think this. Was this just another example of something that sounded good when you wrote it, but had absolutely no reason behind it?

And, as always, you fail to come up with an example of any possible evidence for anthropogenic global warming that you would find convincing. That continues to show that you have no interest in or understanding of science and are simply an idealogue.

The TSI = 4*forcing, the ratio between the area of the earth area of the earth shade crosscut. Are you taking that from Scafetta and West? This is just a rough estimate that assumes a linear relationship between TSI variations and forcing at every point along the graph

No! I don't know about Scafetta or West. This is and exact calculation, no guesses here.

I'll assume that your calculations meant TSI when they said TSE, since you give no other references to the meaning of TSE. I'll agree that this isn't from Scafetta and West. It's straight from crazy-town.

First, forcing of climate change has to do with deltas of TSI. If TSI is constant, there is no forcing. Constant radiation = constant temperature once equilibrium is reached, barring other effects. That should be simple and obvious. Even if TSE refers to the measured difference in Solar radiation instead of total solar irradiance, pretending that forcing from solar radiation is exactly the same as these deltas/4 is a pure pipe dream. In your world, there is 0% reflection from cloud cover, no greenhouse effect whatsover, no feedback effects, no feed-forward effects, no measurement of radiation absorption versus what is reflected into space. No nothing. One is just exactly 4x the other due to a cross-sectional division. Did you even look at the link I provided above? You're som much smarter than ever climate scientist that ever lived. They should have just asked you the answer to calculating solar forsing instead of writing multiple papers on how it can be estimated. You just divide by 4. Why didn't they think of that?

I'd be really interested to see where you got this "revelation" from.

Still waiting for your answer on how you used the modeller to input relative humidity.

if you want to sequester more c02, then support deforestation of OLD trees and replacing with young. use the old trees for furmniture/paper/homs and it keep the c02 sequesteredThis is a typical nonsensical suggestion from you. Wouldn't it make more sense to simply leave the old trees and grow new, young trees elsewhere? The old trees are still growing and still extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and sequestering carbon. Turning them into furniture means they can't continue the process anymore, even at a slow pace and it also takes energy and produces CO2 to cut them down and make them into furniture. Additionally, people throw furniture out and it breaks down over time, so unless you put it all under lock and key, you're just creating more problems than you're solving.

the amazon has more old trees in it than ever, and is a mjor reason co2 in the atmposhere is higher than ever.Wow. We're back to this claim, are we. I think I've amply demonstrated (see point 6) in the past that your belief here is all based on a misunderstanding you had from reading a scientific article about how scientists underestimated the ages of the trees in the Amazon. The scientists' mis-estimates didn't suddenly make the trees older or make them release tons of CO2 any more than me guessing your age as 30 when it was actually 40 would.

we should harvest ALL the OLD trees in the amazon - and african forests and north american and asian forests - at once.So, are you really this dumb naturally or do you have to work at it?

Sorry for not answering everything. Family and work takes all my time, and in haste I just make many oversight mistakes and I do not go into enough depth to describe properly what I mean.

However, before I do explain myself, I notice that you did dispute two points that alone are overwhelmihg evidence against warming linked predominantly to Co2. 1. That There is one to two orders of magnitude more H2O in atmosphere than CO2.

2. That water is more IFR opaque than CO2 and has substantially larger warming effect.

Anyone, who is honest and serious about Greenhouse Effect must give at least 10 times more attention to H2O than to CO2.

By TSE I meant TSI. (TSEnergy from TSIrradiation). Furthermore, I think that it is obvious that from TSI = 4*Forcingfollows deltas equivalence, dTSI = 4*dForcing

I followed the link and I am apalled by the lack of science in that presentation. I don't know what to answer. Perhaps the details are in the source, but I don't see a single formula about anything on that summary page. How can anyone honestly acknowledge (or dispute) such “results”?

Is *this* science?

In the end I absolutely demand some sort of T = Func(TSI,H2O,cloud_cover,CO2,reflexivity,ocean_mass, phytoplankton,etc ...), no matter how complicated the "Func" is. THEN we can start talking about something real.

Why function?

If one has a function then it shows that he has at least a hypothesis on how do things work and therefore has some basis for making a prediction for future. If rather than by a solid math is a statement supported by "Trust us, we are better scientists than you", don't you find it a bit arrogant? Isn't it rather a sign of weakness and possible a sign fraud? Isn't there some ulterior reason for not revealing the hypothesis and calculations? True scientists take pride relationships they discovered and try to publish the math sooner than anyone else.

Let's look at this paper.

Last sentence of Abstract dares to make a claim and offers no proof - yet. So what follows?

Figure 1.: Shows some correlation between CL and T. However what depends on what? Notice, that T peaks mostly precede CL2 peaks. Do they want to infer that higher T causes higher CO2 concentrations? BTW, definition of "CL" is missing.

Figure 2.: Gives 14C and 10Be concentration that depend on many factors, including concentrations, TSI and cosmic rays irradiation. Correctly, no conclusion are made here.

Figure 3.: Shows that the aberation in recent measurement and assumption on past temperatures can be fixed up with their model, only if the CO2 concentrations can be exagerated to 2?C/doubling. Does not define GHG. Graph seems to show correlation with sol C14 and sol Be10. Does that suggest link to increased TSI?

Figure 4. Comparing models with different fudge factor? Ugh...

Figure 5.: No legend, nothing can be seen other than bunch of uncorrelated lines. Is this Science?

Figure 6: Interesting note is that 3 estimates of solar variability were used. So how did they answer the question: "Which one is right?". Interesting is the linear projection to future pointing sharply up. A linear prediction of all! Why not project till year 2500, that would be 25degC warmer! And why was this projection not drawn from the 1800-1850 data, pointing sharply down? Why are the bounding lines drawn so low that the exceptionally cold 1850 looks like within the bounds? Imagine, they could correctly conclude “A 19th century global cooling projection far exceeds the natural variability of the last 1000 years and is greater than the best estimate of global temperature change for the last interglacial.”

Could it be perhaps that false predictions that are known to be false for 150 years are somehow less appealing than false predictions that will be shown false only after the next 150 years?

I think that I’ll write paper on global warming and I’ll make myself famous. Just I must remember to not to make the mistake of actually proving my results, or my authority will be shattered due to lack of obscurity.